Aarontology:I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.

RAND PAUL: There are things that people were concerned about that were unintended consequences [of the Civil Rights Act], for example, people who believe very fervently in people having equal protection under the law, and are against segregation and all that, still worried about the loss of property rights...for example, I can't have a cigar bar any more, and you say, "well, that has nothing to do with race" - the idea of whether or not you control your property, it also tells you, come in here I want to know the calorie count on that, and the calorie Nazis come in here and tell me. [...] The point is that its not all about that. It's not all about race relations, it's about controlling property, ultimately.

As far as I can tell, the Jim Crow laws were only about Seperate But Equal. So yes, he is blatantly contradicting himself here

HighOnCraic:dittybopper: He's actually kind of right: A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.

And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years. What's your point?

dittybopper:HighOnCraic: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right: A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.

And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years. What's your point?

Believe me, I know it took far too long, but it worked out eventually. If anything, it was the fear of a strong, centralized government that held back progress.

Paul's point was that democracy allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed.Was ending Jim Crow laws somehow not related to democracy?

/How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

Senator Paul seems to be just aces at taking a solid footing and using it to climb up to a nonsense mountain. I was impressed that he used an actual filibuster instead of just "threatening" as they do nowadays, and hey he even had what seemed like some legitimate beefs about the drone program. Then it turns out that all his "questions" had already been answered, officially and firmly, before the filibuster. And then he comes out vouching for domestic drones.

So, yes, again, one of the hazards of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. However, Jim Crow had nothing to do with his 1st-world problems of not being able to poison your staff and customers just because you want to.

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically?The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

dittybopper:He's actually kind of right: A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.

factoryconnection:HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...

"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

DamnYankees:dittybopper: He's actually kind of right: A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

This is not what he said. He didn't say "Democracy has vulnerabilities" or "democracy has weaknesses". That would be ok, because while it recognizes the issues in there, it still shows some awareness that every governmental system has some form of abuse possible, but democrac is a pretty good way to handle it.

But he didn't say that. He said he doesn't believe in democracy. That's because he's a Randian (pun not intended). He seems to fundamentally believe in the truth that there is a class of people, the Maker class, which is actually better, and better suited to govern. It's like an inverse Marxism.

RTFA:As I implied earlier, however, I don't want to make too much of this: whether from intellectual mellowing or political calculation, Rand Paul seems to be coming to grips with the limits of libertarian thinking on civil rights. He is behaving less like an ideological android and more like a politician.I say, good for him.

In other words, it's a good thing. What he said wasn't wrong: A majority unchecked can indeed oppress a minority when insufficient protections for the individual exist. Those protections don't have to be governmental, though generally we think of them as such.

Actually, Jim Crow was *WORSE*, in that an actual minority was able to oppress a majority. Eventually we straightened it all out, but it's a conversation that was avoided for a century. Of course, in a libertarian sense, had the blacks in the deep south had good access to firearms, it never would have happened in the first place. It's hard to lynch a person with a .38.

In fact, gun control is the last vestige of Jim Crow in the United States.

HighOnCraic:factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...

"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

Aarontology:I thought he was OK with those kinds of laws because they were on the state level.

He and his dad.

Federal laws restricting the abuse of civil rights are oppression of the worst kind because they were enacted by our duly elected federal representatives and senators. State laws on the other hand abusing civil rights are 100% A-OK because they were enacted by our duly elected state representatives and senators.

dittybopper:HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...

"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy. The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people. 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.